Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's cool. Just don't try to puff up your position by pointing to 17,000 people whose opinions are no better informed than any random person you stop on the street.

Sorry, no pun intended.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The early sentinels about global change made the poor decision to adopt the moniker "global warming" for the sake of simplicity (granted they really might have lacked data about anything else). Anyone somewhat knowledgeable about biosphere issues will tell you that human activity certainly impacts the Earth. The debate is over to what extent "global climate change" is a function of human activity, on balance will human activity be negative, and if so what can/should we do about it.

The White House spin machine wants to water down the negatives and emphasize the positives. Every administration does it. Clearly, their perspective hosts the same fatal flaws as their tree hugging opposition. You should take the science and form policy/agenda based on best evidence . . . not skew evidence or selectively release information which is consistent with your viewpoint.

 

[tcsenter]

Come on, you're smarter than that. There's nothing magical about having an advanced degree. As you understand full well, having a doctorate in English or quantum physics or medicine is irrelevant to one's qualifications in global environmental issues. If the list is 17,000 people with no selectivity based on environment, then it could just as well be a phone book.

If you want to support your point, find qualified environmental scientists who discount global warming.

Apparently, nobody actually went to the website and read a thing:

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

----------------

Actually, it was the environuts who called anyone signing their 'Global Warming Letter' a "scientist":

Claim: Thousands of scientists have signed letters and petitions alerting the public to the dangers of global warming.

Fact: One of the letters often cited to support this claim was issued by Ozone Action. A close examination of that letter revealed that only 10% of the letter's signatories had backgrounds in climate science. Worse, the signatories include two landscape architects, ten people with backgrounds in psychology, one person trained in traditional Chinese medicine techniques and one person trained in gynecology. There is a world of difference between a gynecologist and a climatologist.

Since the climate treaty was hatched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, scientists have shown their dissent with four petitions: the 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," with more than 100 signatures; the 1992 "Heidelberg Appeal," with more than 4,000 signatures; the 1996 "Leipzig Declaration," signed by some 130 prominent U.S. climate scientists, including several who participated in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); and, this year, the "Oregon Petition" which has been signed thus far by 17,000 U.S. scientists.

A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by Dennis Bray of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and Hans von Storch of GKSS Forschungszentrum and reported in the United Nations Climate Change Bulletin, for example, found that only 10% of the researchers surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway."

Further, 35% of those surveyed either disagreed with the statement or were undecided.

Perhaps even more interesting, 67% of the researchers either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that climate change will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation would devastate certain parts of the world -- the underlying assumption on which the talks in Kyoto, Japan were based.

Close to half of the researchers -- 48% -- indicated that they don't have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the strongest argument in favor of quick, decisive, international action to counter the threat of global warming. Another 20% expressed uncertainty about these models.

There is no consensus among qualified scientists on Global Warming.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Cooking the Books - This time on the Environment

lol! That's a rather funny accusation coming from the environuts:

"While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting [the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing
by Candace Crandall - Washington Times, November 20, 1998

More than 17,000 qualified scientists (over 90% verified) sign petition letter expressing doubts over 'politically correct' global warming theories

Accusing the Bush administration of cooking the books on Global Warming? LMAO!

LMAO at the oregon petition!! Wow, they have 17,000 names, but they have a pretty loose definition of qualified. Funny how I cannot find one prominent name in atmospheric science or climatology on that list. Not one!! Good thing they have a bunch of physicists sounding off on global warming - I'm sure they want to know what I think about plasma physics.....

It is nice that you dismiss their opionion just because you dont agree with them.

Yes, just as any physicist should dismiss my opinion on neutrinos. What's the point of claiming to have all these uninformed people sign the petition when most of them are medical doctors, physicists and people without degrees. It becomes as relevant as the petitions on this site.

Well looking at the site there are lots of PhDs and a few MDs. There are lots of folk without degrees listed, but that does not mean they are uneducated. This is your attempt to poison this well that disagrees with you.


It is not hard to find scientist with differing opinions on global warming. Yet, it seems to environuts there is only one valid opinion and theory on the matter.

They are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but when I say uneducated I mean uneducated about global warming and the climate processes behind it. They are padding their stats with people who don't know squat about climate and atmospheric science.

Well to say all 17000 are not educated enough to sign a petition is painting the list with a very broad stroke.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
I used to worry about the environment. I used to care. Then I realized all the greenies are so nuts I can't believe a word they say. Maybe if groups like Greenpeace didn't run the show more people would care again. Until then it don't matter what the EPA or anyone else says, its all background noise..

If you think that humans don't have an effect on the environment or that you don't have a responsibility to take care of it, then you are the biggest nut of them all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by Dennis Bray of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and Hans von Storch of GKSS Forschungszentrum and reported in the United Nations Climate Change Bulletin, for example, found that only 10% of the researchers surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway."

I do not know a single good scientist that would ever claim to know anything for certain. If you change the survey question to say we have "significant evidence" or "global change" you would get a dramatically different result. Furthermore to be valid any survey using "strongly agree" must also have the continuum down to "strongly disagree". It would be the sum of the affirmatives that would carry more weight as a scientific THEORY.

Further, 35% of those surveyed either disagreed with the statement or were undecided.

You see how someone has cooked the results?! The affirmatives, dissenters, and undecided must total 100%. The affirmatives have two levels and the dissenters have two levels. Your writer combined all dissenters (strongly disagree and disagree) plus the undecided to get a total of 35%. 10% of respondents "strongly agree" which means the balance 55% agree to a certainty that global warming is underway. In fact if I used the same misleading characterization as your author I could say 65% or 2/3 of all respondents agree with the statement.

Perhaps even more interesting, 67% of the researchers either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that climate change will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation would devastate certain parts of the world -- the underlying assumption on which the talks in Kyoto, Japan were based.

Real scientists are uncertain about this question b/c it requires knowledge we cannot access. We have significant historical data noting the Earth can radically change in a relatively short period (on a geological time scale) but there's very little evidence of such climate changes on human time scales. Any thoughtful/knowlegeable person has to answer by disagreeing or being undecided but the breakdown between the two is still significant. Your author combines dissenters with undecideds b/c it makes his argument appear valid.

Close to half of the researchers -- 48% -- indicated that they don't have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the strongest argument in favor of quick, decisive, international action to counter the threat of global warming. Another 20% expressed uncertainty about these models.

I am an avid environmentalist but I do not trust tomorrow's weather cast . . . why would I put faith in global climate models? Any legitimate climatologist would tell you our models are no better than our available information and computer power. Both of which pale in comparison to the exceedingly complex planet we occupy. Faith is belief without evidence . . . you know like WMD. There is ample evidence that human activity may have profound effects on our environment but it's next to impossible to produce a meaningful model b/c we scarcely understand how the planet works in isolation from human activity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Jesus help us.


Increased CO2 levels beneficial? Jesus H. Christ on a bike.

 

[tcsenter]

[You see how someone has cooked the results?! The affirmatives, dissenters, and undecided must total 100%. The affirmatives have two levels and the dissenters have two levels. Your writer combined all dissenters (strongly disagree and disagree) plus the undecided to get a total of 35%. 10% of respondents "strongly agree" which means the balance 55% agree to a certainty that global warming is underway. In fact if I used the same misleading characterization as your author I could say 65% or 2/3 of all respondents agree with the statement.

I agree with most of your analysis, but you miss the point.

It is more than enough to show that the following is decidedly not true:

"The consensus among scientists with expertise in ecology, climatology, atmospheric research, and other pertinent disciplines is that 1) the earth is warming and 2) humans are substantially to blame and 3) the results will be disasterous if something isn't done soon."

Being 'undecided' is hardly meaningless when it goes to show that some alleged "consensus" isn't really all that much of a consensus after all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

"The consensus among scientists with expertise in ecology, climatology, atmospheric research, and other pertinent disciplines is that 1) the earth is warming and 2) humans are substantially to blame and 3) the results will be disasterous if something isn't done soon."

I would be undecided in this case b/c 1) I KNOW the Earth is changing faster than typically observed but I am unsure that it is certainly warming, 2 and 3) humans have definitely had a substantial impact but without better information (which this administration nor its predecessor have funded) its difficult to estimate what our balance entails and certainly impossible to determine if a disaster is imminent.

Undecideds are less significant depending on qualifications and what EXACTLY they are undecided about. You cannot answer that question with a survey check. But you cannot certainly misrepresent them.

 

[Tripleshot]

Here is what some warming has done, and what it portends unless global warming causation is addressed, and sooner the better.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

The idea that the White House is editing scientific reports, and then on the other side of there face accusing Dems of revisionist history, is the very essence of hypocracy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Hers is what some warming has done, and what it portends unless global wwarming causation is addressed, and sooner the better.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses

The idea that the White House is editing scientific reports, and then on the other side of there face accusing Dems of revisionist history, is the very essence of hypocracy.

There is little argument that the planet is currently getting warmer( we are coming out of an ice age...). There is also evidence to suggest that planet has been warmer and colder. The is little doubt that human activity has an impact on the environment, but the real question is how much.

There was interesting article a while about us noticing large ice shelfs breaking off because we now have the ability to watch remote areas easily. This may have been happening before, but we just dont know because we dont have the data.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

But such ignorance is not an excuse for indifference. Bush wants to claim a lack of certainty is a legitimate excuse to do nothing. I doubt any climate scientist endorse his position.

 

[tcsenter]

You're right, the actual consensus among the world's qualified scientists is quite broad and encompasses the following range of conclusions:

1. Global Warming

1a. The earth is warming and at a remarkable rate

1b. the earth is warming but not to the extent or rate concluded by the United Nations IPCC or Kyoto Proponents

1c. the earth is warming but its not remarkable

1d. the earth isn't warming

1e. Hmm, I am not really sure


2. Underlying Cause

2a. Humans are completely responsible for global warming

2b. Humans are substantially responsible for global warming

2c. Humans are partially responsible for global warming

2d. Humans are not responsible for global warming, its a natural event

2e. The earth isn't warming, didn't you read my answer above?

2f. Hmmm, I will get back to you on that

2g. I need a beer


3. Response to Global Warming

3a. We need to act now in order to arrest or slow the pace of this global warming

3b. We need to act soon in order to arrest or slow the pace of this global warming

3c. We need to act at some point, but there is no imminent need

3d. We can't do much about it because its largely a natural process

3e. The only measures that would be effective would send civilization back the stone age

3f. The collective flatulence of 6 billion people (and growing) is sufficient to cause an adverse global climate change, how the hell are we supposed to slow this process?

3g. There's nothing to do because, for the third time, the globe isn't warming. Must I keep repeating myself? DAMN!

3h. I'm not really sure

3i. Do you validate parking?

Very compelling.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But such ignorance is not an excuse for indifference. Bush wants to claim a lack of certainty is a legitimate excuse to do nothing. I doubt any climate scientist endorse his position.

So doing nothing means wanting to require coal plants to install scrubbers to remove 70% of the pollutants?
There are several things bush has proposed that will be good for the environment, but these proposals do not fulfull every wish of the environut.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Jesus help us.


Increased CO2 levels beneficial? Jesus H. Christ on a bike.

Hopefully 2 cylinders, and of either British or American design. OK, ya twisted my arm. We'll include the Germans in on this one as well.

Seriously, I believe that mankind can only throw so much at the environment before something breaks. Hopefully we haven't yet reached or passed that particular point in time.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Come on, you're smarter than that. There's nothing magical about having an advanced degree. As you understand full well, having a doctorate in English or quantum physics or medicine is irrelevant to one's qualifications in global environmental issues. If the list is 17,000 people with no selectivity based on environment, then it could just as well be a phone book.

If you want to support your point, find qualified environmental scientists who discount global warming.

Apparently, nobody actually went to the website and read a thing:

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

And apparently you've read nothing I've said. I guarantee you that less than 1% of the signers on this (the one with 2600 physicists, geophysicists ect....) list have a background in climate processes or atmospheric science.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Alot of you missed the point, whether you are for or against conserving the earth's natural resources...

You should be asking yourselves why would Bush not want this information to be released? It sounds to me the information is was disturbing enough for that the Bush administration doesnt us to know about it. The people have the right to know how our earth is changing, that could very well effect the survival of the human species.

Throw away your petty partisanship away long enough to understand that the earth is changing very rapidly this past 100 years, there could be serious consequences as a result of human negligence. This affects all mankind not just the "environuts" and "tree huggers" or whatever you call them. If they were wrong, than you can all go about your lives in blissful ignorance. But what happens if they were very right? Believe me, you dont even want to think about it.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all



CkG

Clinton ran balanced budgets, paid on the debt, and still had a "surplus", we are back to deficit spending under Bush. Who is for fiscal responsibility?

Smiley, chill, we don't need to save the Earth, she has been here well before humans and will be here well after we are gone.....

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Exactly what are the dems planning on offering?

Tree hugging programs aside , they'll offer more EXPENSIVE gov't programs Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR :Q I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all



CkG

Clinton ran balanced budgets, paid on the debt, and still had a "surplus", we are back to deficit spending under Bush. Who is for fiscal responsibility?

Smiley, chill, we don't need to save the Earth, she has been here well before humans and will be here well after we are gone.....

I'm not concerned about the earth, I'm concerned about mankind... of course mother earth would be around, she'll just wipe us out when we get too big for her and replace us with another species.

 

[Alistar7]

comet, metoer, asteroid, mother nature, take your pic......

were never gonna get off this rock, man will die here fighting amongst ourselves while the rest of the universe lives around us......

 

[MonkeyK]

You know, there is a lot more to the environment than global warming. Issues of clean air to breath, clean water to drink, clean soil to grow clean foods. Issues of how long will natural resources be available to us. Issues of where will we put all of the trash that we generate. Issues of biodiversity.

Saying "I used to be interested in the environment, but the environuts turned me off" is a serious cop out. I dispise that term, environut , where did it come from? Rush? Sure there are some freaks out there, that hardly means that anyone concerned with environmental issues is crazy.

 

[tcsenter]

I guarantee you that less than 1% of the signers on this (the one with 2600 physicists, geophysicists ect....) list have a background in climate processes or atmospheric science.

Ok, well, if you're willing to guarantee it, hell, that should be good enough for anyone.

 

[zephyrprime]

Cheapest Dem "healthcare" package I have read so far is 80+ BILLION PER YEAR I guess they are for fiscal responsibility after all

Are you kidding me? $80billion is super cheap. The US currently spends $1.2TRILLION on health care per year. $80billion is only ~$300 per person per year which is less than my mom's health insurance premium per month and only somewhat more than my premium. Perhaps the figure you mentioned is the cost of a prescription drug plan for seniors or something like that?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So doing nothing means wanting to require coal plants to install scrubbers to remove 70% of the pollutants?
There are several things bush has proposed that will be good for the environment, but these proposals do not fulfull every wish of the environut.

Bush is an incredible fan of market solutions and voluntary controls. The requirements you mention refer to targets NOT absolute goals, many are voluntary depending on the status of a plant, and the many plants will be grandfathered out of the requirement. Hence, these proposals are not a solution they are a distraction. Kinda like hydrogen fuel cells . . .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

So doing nothing means wanting to require coal plants to install scrubbers to remove 70% of the pollutants?
There are several things bush has proposed that will be good for the environment, but these proposals do not fulfull every wish of the environut.

Bush is an incredible fan of market solutions and voluntary controls. The requirements you mention refer to targets NOT absolute goals, many are voluntary depending on the status of a plant, and the many plants will be grandfathered out of the requirement. Hence, these proposals are not a solution they are a distraction. Kinda like hydrogen fuel cells . . .

Actually you are wrong. All coal plants will be required to have scrubbers installed by a given date. The current clean air act relies on polution trading and market solutions. You are confused.